RA3019 , The Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act # 157 G.R. No. 176546 September 25, 2009 Petitioner, FELICITAS P. ONG, ONG, Petitioner, vs TE PEOPLE OF TE PILIPPINES, Respondent !ACT" !e$icitas %ng &as the 'unicipa$ 'a(or of Angandanan, )sa*e$a )n 199+, "anggunian 'e*ers $ed a case against her for vio$ating RA3019 The &itnesses testied that the 'a(or procured a dup truc. &ithout pu*$ic *idding The reconditioned dup truc. that had fat tires and &orn out *atteries &as purchased in the aount of P750,000 According to the a sii$ar truc. in *etter condition &i$$ not cause ore than P500,000 The( presented Raon "evi$$a, a$es 'anager of Christian 'otor "a$es in Ca*anatuan Cit(, /ueva cia, &ho testied that the cost of a ten &hee$er-front &hee$er-front drive, i$itar( t(pe )su2u dup truc. ranges f ro P190,00000-P90,00000 )n her defense, defense, a(or ong ong said that the su*ect vehic$e &as purchased on August 14, 199+ for P750,00000 through a negotiated purchase fro osephine Ching of C C Truc.ing6 Truc.ing6 that the pu*$ic *idding and prior "angguniang a(an reso$ution &ere dispensed &ith pursuant to
Coission on Audit 8C%A Reso$ution /os 95-41 and 95-4-A15 &hich do not re:uire the conduct of a pu*$ic *idding on an( negotiated purchase purchase in aounts not e;ceeding P10,000,0000061+ that the truc. &as not in disrepair as the sae &as inspected *( the Regiona$ ngineer fro C%A &ho dec$ared it t and in good running condition6 that the purchase &as a$$o&ed *( C%A *ecause it did not issue a notice of disa$$o&ance )""< =%/ %ng vio$ated RA3019
>?@ es, the court found !e$icitas %ng gui$t( for vio$ating RA3019 *e(ond reaso*na*$e dou*t and sentenced her 8A )prisonent of, after app$(ing the )ndeterinate "entence "entence ?a&, si; (ears and one onth as iniu, up to ten (ears, as a;iu6 and 8 Perpetua$ dis:ua$ication fro Pu*$ic %Bce Accused is here*( ordered to RT
#15 G.R. No. 1447!4.September 1447!4.September ", 2002.# PE$RO G. SISTO%A, pet&t&o'er, (). ANIANO $ESIERTO &' *&) +p+&t) Omb/)m', '/ ELISEO CO, re)po'/e't) re)po'/e't)
!AC" Pedro "isto2a &as the @irector of ureau of Corrections %n August 1999 the PAC of uCor oDered a pu*$ic *idding for the supp$( of toato sauce for the /e& i$i*id )nates There &ere *idders *idders for the said ite ite The $o&est *idder &as !i$crafts !i$crafts )ndustiries *ut &as dis:ua$ied *( PAC on account of oDering a nonregistered *rand of toato paste and for not specif(ing its countr( of origin The *id &as a&arded to the second $o&est &hich &as the $ias Eenera$ 'erchandising, and a purchase order &as prepared *( the "upp$( @ivision and &as approved and signed *( @irector "isto2a The sae &as for&arded to the @epartent of ustice for approva$ and appropriations ut it &as disapproved on the ground that the a&ard to $ias Een 'erchandising , *eing the second $o&est *idder &as not c$ear$( ustied The docuents &ere returned to uCor %n %ct 1999, @i rector "isto2a endorsed the P% in favour of $ias 'erchandising and a$$uded to the fact that the supp$( &as a$read( de$ivered and consued in "epte*er The sae &as disapproved the second tie "isto2a ade a second endorseent, and on @ece*er 1999 @% na$$( approved the P%, and funding &as prepared and paid to $ias 'ercahndising in the aount of P40,00 %n 44 "epte*er 1999 &hi$e eDorts to secure the approva$ of the
purchase order &ere *eing underta.en, respondent $iseo Co, a perennia$ *idder for supp$( of food ites of the /e& i$i*id Prison, $ed an aBdavit-cop$aint &ith the %Bce of the %*udsan a$$eging criina$ and adinistrative charges for vio$ation of "ec 3, par 8e, RA 3019, other&ise .no&n as the Anti-Eraft and Corrupt Practices Act, against petitioner Pedro E "isto2a as @irector of the ureau of Corrections and oBcers and e*ers of its "upp$( @ivision and PAC >e c$aied that "isto2a and his staD conspired &ith each other to cause undue inur( to the governent and the inates of the /e& i$i*id Prison *( giving undue advantage to $ias Eenera$ 'erchandise a$though its *id &as higher in price and $o&er in :uantit( than that oDered *( !i$crafts )ndustries, )nc
%n 'a( 4000, the %*udsan recoended the $ing of criina$ charges against "isto2a and his coconspoirators for the vio$ation of RA3019 )""< =hether or /ot "isto2a is gui$t( of RA3019 >?@ /o The court disissed the case against hi for &ant of reasona*$e ground
159 G.R. No. 165111. - 21, 2006.#
RO3ERTO E. CANG '/ PACIFICO $. SAN ATEO, pet&t&o'er), (). PEOPLE OF TE PILIPPINES, re)po'/e't
!ACT" Ro*erto Chang &as the 'unicipa$ Treasurer of 'a.ati Pacico "an 'ateo &as the Chief of %perations of usiness Revenue @epartent of 'a.ti cit( )n 1991, Assessent notices &ere sent to Eroup @eve$opers )nc to sett$e their ta; decienc( in the aount of P9,000 "an 'ateo &ho had *een ca$$ing E@)Fs Accounting departent as.ed to ta$. to soeone re assessent, &as a*$e to spea. via phone &ith 'ario 'agat, the C%% of E@) >e &as a*$e to convince 'agat to have $unch &ith hi and Chang
'agat said that he had to get approva$ fro the top anageent of E@) E@) as.ed the he$p of /) to entrap Chang and "an 'ateo A $unch eeting &ith the t&o &as set up in 'a.ati "ports C$u* &here the t&o &ere na**ed after accepting the cash fro 'agat )""< =%/ Chang and "an 'ateo are $ia*$e for RA3019 >?@ es !ro the evidence for the prosecution, it &as c$ear$( esta*$ished that the criina$ intent originated fro the inds of petitioners ven *efore the une 19, 1991 eeting too. p$ace, petitioners a$read( ade .no&n to 'agat that E@) on$( had t&o options to prevent the c$osure of the copan(, either to pa( the assessed aount of P9,+0111 to the 'unicipa$it(, or pa( the aount of P145,000 to the
%n their rst $unch tg in 'a.ati "ports C$u*, 'agat &as convinced *( the t&o to pa( P145,000 to Greso$veH his ta; issue =hen "an 'ateo cae to 'agatFs %Bce to co$$ect , he &as given a chec. pa(a*$e to Cit( of 'a.ati "an 'ateo e;p$ained that the one( &i$$ not *e going to Cit( of 'a.ati *ut to a*so$ve E@) of their ta; decienc( "an 'ateo further stressed to 'agat that the( on$( had 4 options, either to pa( P9,000 or the P145,000, or the( &i$$ have their copan( c$osed
#159 G.R. No. 1"9!07. 'e 7, 2000 FLORANTE . SORI8E% SAN$IGAN3AAN, et al.
vs.
!ACT" That on or a*out !e*ruar( 49 to une 15, 199+, or soetie prior or
su*se:uent thereto, in the Province of Papanga, Phi$ippines, a*ove-naed accused pu*$ic oBcers fro the @epartent of Pu*$ic =or.s and >igh&a(s, nae$(, !$orante "ori:ue2, Progra @irector 'PR-P'%, Roeo P 'endo2a, Re( " @avid, <$(sis 'aIago, uan ' Eon2a$es and Ei$ A Rivera, a$$ "upervising ngineers, 'PR-P'%, and private individua$s, Arie$ T ?i, C%, A$*erto Teo$engco, /ei$ A$$an T 'ar( and Reigio Angtia, r of At$antic rectors, )nc, , *( reason of their respective oBcia$ functions, did
consent, a$$o& andJor perit the contractor, At$antic rectors, )nc, represented *( aforenaed accused private individua$s, to disregard andJor deviate fro the p$ans and specications of Contract Pac.age /o 45 in constructing the Transverse "ection of the Pasig-Potrero River @i.ing "(ste 8popu$ar$( .no&n as the 'egadi.e in vio$ation of the ateria$ provision of said contract, and thereafter a$$o& the contractor to co$$ect and receive P3,49,70+1, despite the vio$ation, and &hich
*reach of contract caused the co$$apse of su*stantia$ portion of the transverse di.e, there*( causing preudice and daage to the governent )""< =%/ the accused pu*$ic oBcia$s &ere gui$t( of RA3019 >?@ Case &as disissed against accused for $ac. of suBcient evidence